Friday, 20 February 2015

As we edge closer to the general election in May, it is rather inevitable that the polling would show a trend in decline regarding UKIP's support, which has been consistently argued by EUReferendum:

Talk of a major Ukip "revolution" at the general election looks to have been seriously overblown, says Politics.co.uk, a view based on new constituency polling released by Lord Ashcroft.

The data show that Ukip is not on course to win any of its key target
seats currently held by the Conservatives. Most worrying for the party,
we are told, in the poll of Boston and Skegness - where Ukip won its
largest majority in last year's council elections – it has been pushed
back into second place.

There are a myriad of reasons for a decline in UKIP's poll rating. As has been well documented here and elsewhere, such as Complete Bastard, is that UKIP's problems have in the main been self inflicted. There is a fundamental lack of coherence, a geographical divide in message - depending on Labour areas or Tory ones, no fully worked out policies, and u-turns in under 24 hours at the whim of the party's leader.

So-called policies which do manage to remain intact, on its website, are almost identical to the ones contained within the 2010 manifesto which Farage infamously dismissed as drivel.

Thus, with the decline in UKIP support, we can note with wry amusement that
UKIP will be having their Spring Conference in Margate - where apparently we will see the launch of UKIP's manifesto. For those who
may have not visited Margate recently, it would be described by estate
agents euphemistically as 'tired'. Many of its attractions, like the Winter Gardens, are in need of urgent repair.

However we also consider that the UKIP has an inherent problem, which is not entirely its fault, and that is the failings of the "Westminster System" and First Past The Post. 'Winning' the Euro elections is one thing, but with the business end of a Parliament coming to its end, and a looming election, the electorate have real choices to make. Ultimately they have to make a decision on who they would like as Prime Minister. UKIP is going to face a squeeze in an electoral process that is a Presidential System by proxy.

"There's only one choice Cameron and Tories and economic
recovery or Miliband and Balls the people who caused the economic
problems in the first place."

The Westminster System is no longer about electing MPs but electing Prime Ministers by proxy. Further confirmation comes with the forthcoming leaders' debates which we have criticised here.

Interestingly we can also look back to the 19th Century to make our case with Chartism. Chartism: A New History by Malcolm Chase is a fascinating account of a British mass movement for democratic rights in the 19th Century.

Chartism was one of the very rare moments in British history where it is legitimate to speculate how close the country came to revolution. And what is interesting is Chase's attention to detail which allows the story to come alive for those in the 21st Century. One intriguing passage was this regarding the presentation of the first petition:

The Petition was finally presented to the House of Commons on Friday 14 June 1839. Few Chartists had expected it to make a difference to parliamentary attitudes and in this respect 14 June did not disappoint. No indication was given whether MPs would formally debate it, and when Attwood and Fielden...rolled the giant [petition] into the Commons chamber it was greeted with laughter.

And Chase then describes the attempts to present the massive second petition in 1842:

[It was arranged] to bring 'the Chartist leviathan petition' direct to the Commons chamber while it was in session. But...Parliament's officials had realised the physical problem this posed. The Petition became jammed tight in the Members' Entrance. Attempts were made to dismantle...part of the door frame; but eventually the Petition had to be disassembled and taken into pieces into the Commons. Heaped up on the floor of the chamber, it dwarfed the clerks' table on which, technically, it was supposed to be placed.

One senses here the familiar futility of lobbying a system that would not listen. But those with a keen eye will notice that the Chartists' leviathan petitions, in 1839 and 1842, were delivered to Parliament. Not to Government, not to Number 10, but to Parliament - to representatives.

Alone this little detail illustrates that the people now, perhaps unconsciously, have appreciated how the power has been consolidated and fused between the government and Parliament. Bypass the monkeys - the middle men - and go straight for the organ grinder. And it's with great irony, that Chartists tried to petition representatives when they had no vote and now in the age of universal suffrage we no longer bother.

Thus if we want an effective 'people's army' and a 'revolution' we need to fundamentally change our failed parliamentary system. Demand #3 of the Harrogate Agenda is as good as place to start as any:

3. Separation of powers:
The executive shall be separated from the legislature. To that effect, prime ministers shall be elected by popular vote; they shall appoint their own ministers, with the approval of parliament, to assist in the exercise of such powers as may be granted to them by the sovereign people of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; no prime ministers or their ministers shall be members of parliament or any legislative assembly;

Wednesday, 11 February 2015

Unfortunately on Sunday, our car was hit, and significantly damaged, in a car park while parked for about half an hour. It's more an inconvenience than anything else to get it fixed and unsurprisingly no note etc was left on the windscreen as to details regarding the driver who damaged our car. This always somewhat annoys me but I accept it happens.

However four days later (today) my mobile has been inundated with copious calls from an 0843 number which when answered begins with a recorded message that announced they had details of an accident I’d been involved in the last couple of days, and they would apparently like to help me gain compensation. The details seem rather specific to be merely a random call, especially as my mobile is registered with TPS.

We're insured with RSA, who via their website apparently take privacy seriously, and so they should as it has to fulfill EU related data protection requirements. Given that RSA are the only ones who have been officially informed of said incident perhaps they'd like to explain how such details have made their way to an "ambulance chasing" firm.

Saturday, 7 February 2015

Mrs TBF and I have just returned from spending a nice relaxing few days in London, not only celebrating our anniversary, but a chance to be away from work - and in this blog's case politics.

Thus with this in mind, I'm keen to leave aside temporarily the political problems of the "Westminster bubble", and begin with what can be described in an unusually English upbeat observation that London as a city to explore and visit is, in my view, one of the finest in the world...albeit with some understandable failings.

I have visited London on so many occasions since my childhood and have frequented not only most of the usual tourist parts, but sporting venues, conferences and other copious personal related ventures. Yet it constantly amazes me that no matter how many times I visit, there are always great areas and places that I have never been to or even heard of.

One of the reasons, and the most obvious, is that London is rather large, not as much as some other world cities admittedly but its size is significantly disproportionate to the size of a relatively small island. But alone this cannot describe London's appeal. Los Angeles is also a large sprawling city yet it is the worst in my experience I have ever visited - in short it's a dump.

Many tourist city guides tend to recommend visitors stay in relatively safe 'tourist areas' - with a dash of common sense - and in contrast warn of the dangers of completely separate "never visit after dark" areas. LA manages to combine the two along just one street (Hollywood Boulevard) ...epitomised by the Hollywood film Pretty Woman, where the film attempted to glamorise the best bits of LA by having Julia Roberts play a prostitute. So size is clearly not everything.

Another advantage with London is that it simply has a lot of history; peppered as it is with thousands of historic properties, as well as four World Heritage Sites (Greenwich, Tower, Kew and Westminster) adding in scheduled ancient monuments and historic parks. What other major world city has such a comprehensive and informative blue plaque scheme allowing casual visitors to connecting buildings with the past?

This is the city I have long known, yet despite being largely familiar with London it was interesting that on this occasion it was the first time we visited the capital properly while utilizing a wheelchair. Navigating a city with the limitations that a wheelchair poses reveals a different aspect of a city, its culture and all the nuances which emerge. Not all of it initially obvious.

In our post in June last year criticism was made of wheelchair access regarding Brussels and in particular - and rather ironically - EU buildings. In contrast it can be safely argued that wheelchair access on London's public pavements is largely spot on in comparison.

Gently sloped dropped kerbs with tactile paving are abound. It's worth noting that tactile paving not only helps those who have sight disability to find the edge of the kerb but also acts as "foot traction" for those pushing trying to tame a 'runaway' wheelchair on a slope in wet weather which could otherwise lead to slipping and falling over.

And blimey isn't London 'hilly'- perhaps memories play tricks but it
isn't as flat I had always thought it was. I guess it should be obvious that being on a flood
plain, and much of it being built around the Thames, that areas of London unsurprisingly slopes
significantly towards the river, but it doesn't truly become
apparent until you have to push a wheelchair away from the river - essentially uphill.

Whenever I have previously visited London I have opted to use the Tube to travel around London. For obvious reasons on this occasion due to better accessibility we stuck to London taxis. I'd forgotten how good they were.

Each taxi came with its own ramp, the drivers were unfailing polite and helpful and they put themselves out to the most extraordinary inconvenience to drop us off to make Mrs TBF's life a little easier, to the extend of holding up a road of busy traffic. Another 'interesting' feature of them, as Bill Bryson noted, is they cannot drive more than 200 feet in a straight line before charging down another obscure street you never knew existed.

Another attraction of London, and a major tourist one is its pubs. Old London pubs can be a particular nuisance if you are tall, as most of the toilets are 'downstairs' which requires not only navigating restricted stair access but low ceilings when in the facilities.

Invariably also these same pubs have steps outside the front door which provide a further obstacle for wheelchair bound customers. Yet many pubs were helpful with ramps and lifting. However it's with some irony that the more modern pubs which had removed steps for a slope for the front door didn't carry on that thinking for the rest of the pub.

A classic example was the Slug and Lettuce in Leicester Square, despite no steps into the premises, all of its 'wheelchair access available seating' was of the tall chair variety, pictured below:

And that helps a disabled person how? We suspect it's not malicious just a lack of thought- undoubtedly they've figured out, along with many other 'concept' pubs, that tall chairs and standing increases the alcohol consumption.

Public buildings, in contrast tend to be better and go out of their way to help even if for very obvious reasons medieval ones like cathedrals and castles do not lend themselves fully to those who don't have complete mobility. Here Westminster Abbey was no exception.

Of all the major London attractions I've always been reluctant to visit the Abbey in the past due to its ongoing standing prohibitive cost, despite being someone who greatly admires and extensively enjoys visiting medieval buildings. The Abbey, even by London standards, is expensive. It is sad that this is the case for anyone interested in British history, architecture and as an active place of worship. The expensive entrance price doesn't allow photography inside even without a flash.

However for a wheelchair user, along with a carer, the entrance was free - mainly due to large parts of the building being inaccessible. Thus, after many years, I was able to take in, and appreciate, the internal architectural delights of the Abbey (in the absence of the somewhat overpriced entrance fee I gave a voluntary donation).

The volunteers within the Abbey though couldn't have been more helpful, even with little details like providing, without prompting, a hands free version of the audio guide to those whose hands are tied up with pushing wheelchairs.

So what to make of Westminster Abbey itself? Oddly despite its religious heritage, and more recently the wedding of William and Kate, the Abbey really
feels more like a memorial to Britain’s more famous figures than a place of
worship.

What is noticeable from the outset is the incredible number of memorials, plaques and statues to famous
rulers, artists, and poets that has been packed into the building. In this sense no other Abbey or Cathedral in England is like it and as consequence the religious imagery is much less noticeable here.

Given the overwhelming tributes within the building to leaders of establishment - Prime Ministers, Kings etc - it leaves us puzzled why the tribute is not reciprocated in the form of formal contributions to its upkeep:

What is less well known is that Westminster Abbey receives no regular
funding from the Crown, the Church of England or the government.Neither a
cathedral nor a parish church, Westminster Abbey was established as a
‘Royal Peculiar’ in 1560 by Queen Elizabeth I. The Abbey is outside the
jurisdiction and responsibility of the Church of England and the
Government. In short, this means we must seek our own financial support.

So instead an overpriced ticket paid for by the hoi polloi it is. The Abbey, among many others, serves as the final resting place of Queen Elizabeth I, Mary
Queen of Scots, Isaac Newton, Charles Dickens, Charles Darwin, and
Laurence Olivier, and also features memorials to William Shakespeare, Admiral Horatio
Nelson, Jane Austen, and Oscar Romero (who are all buried elsewhere - Jane Austin for example in Winchester).

My personal view having wandered around is this desire within an Abbey to have so many plaques, especially in Poets' Corner, largely of non-religious nature contrary to its function becomes borderline tacky and I would include, slightly controversially, the grave of the Unknown Warrior pictured above. More a tourist existence than a dignified tribute.

An interesting architectural feature, and again rather unique and largely unseen on television coverage of royal occasions, is use of iron stabilisation bar supports around the central part of the Abbey to prop up the pillars which disappointingly suggests a fundamental instability of the original Gothic structure.

Anyway I'm glad I've seen it and equally pleased it didn't cost Mrs TBF and I £40 to enter.

Moving on from Westminster Abbey, just along the road, we had a quick look at New Scotland Yard. Not surprisingly for a fortified Police Station the place was adorned with CCTV, fences and intimidating looking Policeman guarding every entrance. They probably guarded the front entrance as well but it was hard to tell where the front entrance was. Unwelcoming NSY was, and as I've noted before much can be garnered from a building about an institution's culture.

But still there was always the iconic revolving triangle sign to observe:

Which now appears right in the middle of a public pavement; outside the confines of NSY, on its own, which at the time I visited was patrolled by a PCSO:

So the iconic sign is in a public space with plastic plod to look after it, but the rest of the building is not easily accessible by members of the public and is guarded by proper plod. It's not quite how it looks on television. We should know our place.

Ultimately though London, despite its quirks, is pretty kind to those who are wheelchair bound, including the British public who were very helpful.

Mrs TBF and I rounded off a pleasant few days by going to see Shaun the Sheep The Movie - this review is pretty much right. What a delightful, funny and 'British' film it is.

Essentially it is a 90 minute silent stop motion film made for under 10's which is an impressive feat in itself. It's obviously been made with loving care and to keep the adults amused it sneaks in plenty of references to films such as Taxi Driver, Shawshank Redemption, Silence of the Lambs and Chopper.

Tuesday, 3 February 2015

I had intended to have part 2 up of the EU and Telecoms piece up this evening (Tuesday), however time is short this week and I would like to do the so far unfinished piece justice rather than rush it, not least because I have recently come across documentation that shows Norway has more say within its EEA agreement then the UK does over telecommunications; notably its Electronic Communications Act and also its Personal Data Act.

What becomes very obvious when researching the impact of the copious regulations on our country is the ridiculous myriad of EU and international competences which have seemingly no end and it can become quickly rather bewildering trying to follow and make sense of it all. But make sense of it and try to win a referendum we must.

We also note that the more we investigate Norway's EEA arrangements, the more it becomes apparent that not only does it have a much better deal than us within the Single Market (albeit not perfect) but it exposes further the deception or even ignorance of our own politicians regarding this issue.

And with that in mind, and this maybe harsh, I do rather resent that it's taking a small number of bloggers who are attempting to address these issues...unpaid...in their own time, in preparation for a possible referendum than a party which has significant funding via its now 23 MEPs yet literally pisses it up against the wall. This is all we get for our money.

We can win a referendum - we have many advantages over 1975 but we're in danger of needlessly repeating many of the mistakes.

But that said, time is currently short because Mrs TBF and I will be in London for the next few days celebrating our 10th wedding anniversary. In a few days we will return to normal service on this blog.

Monday, 2 February 2015

With this piece, in part 1, we turn our sights on the EU's complex role in member state telecommunications regulation, with emphasis on the UK. The above graph gives some indication of the intricate nature of telecommunications regulation within the EU and the partial subservient relationship for a member state such as the UK.

As can be seen above (click to enlarge) the UK's main regulator Ofcom has direct relationships with EU bodies which bypass UK ones, as well as having interaction domestically. The EU and UK regulatory structures increasingly are indistinguishable from each another.

Yet also the bewildering emergence and relentless progress of technology means we will also see that EU has only become a partial player in what is increasingly a global regulatory industry. This becomes evident when we consider that even within Europe itself where many functions are regulated beyond the EU.

An earlier example can be seen acutely with the establishment of the mobile phone standard GSM in the 1980s. GSM, with very little if at all EEC/EU involvement, was an illustration of European nation state co-operation and subsequently the GSM standard became a global success story.

The GSM agreement was reflected in the long standing establishment of non-EU bodies include the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) and the European Conference on Posts and Telecommunications (CEPT).

Despite the existence of non-EU bodies it is with no surprise, due to the inherent cross-border nature of telecommunications, that the EU saw the sector as an opportunity to use the growth of telecoms to try to facilitate 'ever closer Union' further.

Pre-Maastricht the EEC had attempted to use the Terminal Equipment Directive (88/301/EEC) - issued under Article 90 of the Treaty of Rome - to force the liberalisation of telecoms including the satellite and mobile markets. Despite Member States objecting on the basis it was outside the EEC's own competences (satellite communications for example have military implications) the ECJ after 30 months of legal wrangling upheld the Directive.

Naturally the solution for the EEC (EU) to such legal wrangling was to make communications a competence via a Treaty. Thus not long after, we see the clear intentions of the EU's ambitions when in the Maastricht Treaty (Article 129 D) it for the first time gave the EU competence in the field of telecommunications (my emphasis):

The Maastricht Treaty gave the EU the task of establishing and
developing trans-European networks (TENs) in the areas of transport,
telecommunications and energy, in order to help develop the internal
market, reinforce economic and social cohesion, link island, landlocked
and peripheral regions with the central regions of the Union, and bring
EU territory within closer reach of neighbouring states.

Even in the early 1990s telecommunications, which for obvious reasons was becoming a globalised industry, increasingly relied on global bodies to set global standards for convenience. The EU though envisaged the sector more as a mechanism and means to facilitate its own political union - despite the example of GSM and mobile technology where nation states had led and the EU had merely followed.

Typically then we saw in the early 1990s the EU arguing in favour of more telecommunications
liberalisation with a view to completion of the internal market with an EU wide regulator. Emboldened by new powers in Maastricht led to the EU Commission launching a strong push to adopt a common strategy for the creation of a European information society driven by a European information infrastructure. In 1993, the Council of Ministers (EU) agreed to fully liberalise voice telephony services by 1 January 1998:

[The EU Commission] it is asking the Council to decide on a number of principles contained in the Commission communication, in particular:

- the complete liberalization of services;
- a transitional period ending in 1998
- a precise schedule in two main stages with a consolidation
phase (1993-1995) and a phase of gradual opening up to
competition (1996-1998);
- the role of infrastructures.

Following its discussion, the Council instructed the Permanent Representatives Committee to continue work on this dossier with maximum efficiency, in order to enable the Telecommunications Council convened for 16 June to arrive at an agreement.

The Community needs an adequate frame-work for the developing of new market opportunities. In Europe some sectors are traditionally the exclusive preserve of non-market services or public utilities, in particular when it comes to the fulfillment of public needs. Reforms aiming at separating the different functions of public authorities with regard to the supply of such services as producer, purchaser and regulator, in sectors such as health care, telecommunications, etc. should enable the needs of users to be better served at less cost for public finances and with market creation potential .

The Presidency Conclusion on behalf of Member States accepted the EU Commission White Paper noting:

A more decentralized economy, given the growing importance of the local level; the economy needs to be geared to the possibilities offered by the new technologies...

...the trend towards a decentralized economy, which has been made possible by new information technologies, must be encouraged....The European Council asks the
Commission to examine ways of achieving this objective.

Thus the European Council requested a report be prepared for its 1994 Corfu meeting by a group of prominent persons on the specific measures to be taken into consideration by the Community and the Member States for the infrastructures in the sphere of information.

Such a group 'of prominent persons' became known as the 'High Level Group on the Information Society' - organized by the Commission and chaired by
the then Commissioner for the Internal Market and Industrial Affairs (soon to become the Commissioner for Industrial Affairs, Information and Telecommunications Technologies), Martin Bangemann - a former leader of the German Free Democratic Party (FDP).

By 1994 the High Level Group on the Information Society produced a report for the 1994 European Summit; "Europe and the Global Information Society: Recommendations to the European Council" a report which became widely known as the Bangemann Report and was adopted by the European Council, Corfu, June 1994.

The report urged the European Union "to put its faith in market
mechanisms as the motive power to carry [Europe] into the information age.
This meant that actions must be taken at the European level and by
Member States to strike down entrenched positions which put Europe at a
competitive disadvantage."

The report proposed "fostering an entrepreneurial
mentality to enable the emergence of new dynamic sectors of the economy;
[a means of developing] a common regulatory approach to bring forth a
competitive, Europe-wide, market for information services."

It then noted:

In addition to its specific recommendations, the group proposes an action plan of concrete initiatives based on a partnership between the private and public sectors to carry Europe forward into the information society.

The Bangemann Report was to have a very significant and lasting influence on the framing of subsequent EU policies for Information and Telecommunications Technologies (ICT) research and communication services. For many years following its publication the report was repeatedly cited as a kind of "Bible" by Commission documents and officials on a very wide spectrum of industrial and social policy initiatives. For example it was explicitly invoked as a framework for an important 1994 document setting out a new strategy for the audio- visual sector in the EU single market context and another paper in 1994 titled 'Europe's way to the Information Society: An Action Plan'.

Yet despite its significance within EU circles the Bangemann report was out of date almost as soon as it was written. It had largely ignored the emergence of the internet and what it did acknowledge was to highlight its basic lack of understanding and knowledge. Consequently it expressed a level of discomfort - page 27 (my emphasis):

Internet is based on a world-wide network of networks that is not centrally planned. In fact nobody owns Internet. There are now some 20 million users in more than 100 countries. The network offers electronic mail, discussion forums, information exchange and much more. Internet is so big, and growing so fast, that it cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, it has flaws notably serious security problems. Rather than remaining merely clients, we in Europe should consider following the evolution of Internet closely, playing a more active role in the development of interlinkages.

In the meantime, while largely failing to anticipate or understand the internet, the liberalisation process in other telecommunications sectors was
being extended post 1994, for example in satellite communications.

In contrast to the liberalisation process, and interestingly, the intention to adopt similar criteria to public broadcasting services (PBS) came with a great deal of reluctance - the EU itself noting that "the relationship of European Union policy and Public Broadcasting Services could be summarized as a historic dilemma without a clear answer. The balance between a strong European competition policy and public broadcasting survival has still to be found. Perhaps the text cited below explains the Gordian knot faced by European Union":

“We need balanced solutions able at the same time to respect two important points. The first is the basic function of Public Broadcasting Services in the most of EU Member States. This fact has been recognised recently in Amsterdam Treaty with the Public Broadcasting Protocol. The second is that European integration is based on free market and equal competition. The future of the dual European TV system depends on how we can be able to combine these two apparently incompatible principles” (The digital age: European Audiovisual Policy. Report from the high level group on audiovisual Policy, 1998).

In essence the EU faced a dilemma; how to make compatible its own competition rules with public state funding of PBS. Article 87 forbids the state aid, which distorts or threatens to distort competition, insofar as it affects trade between Member States but with broadcasting an exception was made which notably meant that PBS could remain publicly funded to ensure the promotion of the "democratic, social and cultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve media pluralism".

The reluctance of the EU was undoubtedly
due to its appreciation that member states' PBS networks would be more sympathetic to its integration project under the guise of the 'cultural need' criteria. This becomes especially evident when we consider the BBC receives a substantial amount of money from the EU and possibly related (or not) has long been criticised for pro-EU bias.

Public broadcasting aside, generally from 1994 onwards, in the context of developing
the 'information society', general liberalisation of telecommunications
structures was presented as the way to develop multimedia - cable television networks were 'liberalised' in 1996, with mobile
communications following on 1st January 1998.

Bangemann's report thus was hugely influential, and despite failing to
anticipate properly or appreciate the approaching dominance of the
internet, its vision of telecommunications liberalisation would influence the EU Commission's thinking regarding the internet.

The EU's determination to 'liberalise' markets resulted in a growth of "regulator watching", which followed closely the experiences of the privatisation drive in Member States particularly the UK. "Regulator watching", or a regulatory state, provided a convenient opportunity in extending EU
governance across member states via a regulatory body.

By separating out the service provision by companies from sector oversight privatisation, and the creation of markets, allowed conditions to exist for the adoption of common rules by an independent regulatory body and the conditions of access to the
market for new operators to be harmonised. All of which naturally increased the call for 'more Europe' under one EU regulator.

And in part 2 of the EU's effect on the telecoms industry we will see how it attempted to facilitate the emergence of an EU regulatory body.

Saturday, 24 January 2015

For all the celebrations last May from UKIP at 'winning' the European elections (on a very low turnout), and achieving an unprecedented 24 MEPs, those who had seen it all before were instead mentally marking up the odds of how many UKIP MEPs would be left by 2019.

Anticipation and history suggested strongly that the tally won't be good. UKIP's track record of keeping and maintaining MEPs is remarkably poor. To lose one or two maybe careless but to lose over half during the last Parliamentary session suggests a far more serious problem within the party.

And it's in this context we note that the Telegraph reports that UKIP MEP Bashir has defected to the Conservative Party:

One of the UK Independence Party’s most senior politicians has defected to the Conservatives in a major blow to Nigel Farage’s general election campaign.

Amjad Bashir, a Ukip MEP and the party’s leading Asian figure, told The Telegraph that Ukip had become a “party of ruthless self-interest” that was incapable of delivering a referendum on membership of the European Union.

Interestingly the Mail also reports the defection with a different headline emphasising perhaps there was a different motive:

A senior Ukip MEP has defected to the Conservative Party as it emerged
that he was suspended pending investigations into 'extremely serious
financial and employment questions', the party said.

With two contrasting accounts for the defection it's naturally difficult to say for certain which report would be the most accurate. However given that the Mail's 'breaking news' piece had a link to the Telegraph website (which it very rarely does and is now removed) would indicate that Telegraph were planning this for a Sunday scoop. Thus all the signs suggest that having got wind of the defection the Mail has been briefed as a spoiler from sources close to Farage.

Whatever the true reasons though we can only agree with much of Bashir's analysis of UKIP:

In a damning broadside against his former colleagues, he described Ukip as
“pretty amateur” and condemned its “ridiculous” lack of policies. He said
the party was “delusional” about its chances of winning seats in May.

The lack of UKIP policies has long been issue and has led to defections before. Yet to point this out, even as rather gentle constructive criticism, invited much ridicule.

But the facts are clear, UKIP participated in the European Elections with no manifesto, and despite reassurances to its supporters by Farage leader that there would be a fully costed one by the 2015 general election we see little sign of one. Even here its deja vu all over again:

Ukip's policy chief has quit just six weeks ahead of the party's manifesto launch in February.

Thus UKIP candidates are being thrown into an election campaign with no party policies; a betrayal of those who have to campaign on doorsteps and in hustings meetings. No wonder many of them (maybe in frustration) are in absence sending out to the electorate the 2010 version which was dismissed by Farage as drivel.

So with a general election impending UKIP's catalogue of bad press is increasing substantially. Much of it self-inflicted is now entering its third month and shows no sign of letting up. It's clear there UKIP has significant problems which particularly suggests a deep dissatisfaction with the leadership.

Any idea that UKIP will hold the balance of power or even help the eurosceptic cause secure a referendum is looking wildly over-optimistic.

Thursday, 22 January 2015

The headline, of course, could have just as easily said "Ex EU Commissioner Leon Brittan dies".

No doubt in part related to significant allegations made against him towards the end of his life, Brittan is seen as controversial.

But we mustn't also forget he was a long line of Tory MPs who supported further European integration and went "native" particularly over the UK's membership of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism - the very mechanism which led directly to the early '90s recession and so-called Black Wednesday. While Thatcher was fighting a rearguard action against membership, Brittan helped to isolate her.

The subsequent consequences of ERM membership were disastrous for Britain and for the rest of us.

One however appreciates the irony that being an EU Commissioner means always referring to the UK as a member state and never specifically naming the country of his birth (always "the country I know best" - in Euro speak) with the homophone that was his name.

We on this blog, rightly or wrongly, have never been a great fan of the phrase - or belief - of "not speaking ill of the dead". Our view of him while he was alive is no different now he's dead. To advocate otherwise would be dishonest...

In the early hours of the morning where there is likely to be no-one about bar possibly a couple of security guards, a man has apparently driven a car ladened with gas canisters into the Council building with devastating effects. It seems to reflect a determination to do the job properly.

The man's motives will undoubtedly become clear as the days pass, but given that on a daily basis I take Mrs TBF to work via Wallingford I can confirm that their usual Thursday bin collections have been unaffected - continuing as normal - with bin lorries which have £250 personalised "SODC" number plates attached on each lorry.

Wednesday, 14 January 2015

Within our 'representative democracy' expressed by so-called Parliamentary sovereignty the idea of Prime Minister debates, first instigated in 2010, is absurd if not downright objectionable.

The electorate in a General Election do not vote for the PM, instead they vote for their local MP which helps form a Parliament from which a Prime Minster is chosen.

One often consistent criticism of Gordon Brown's tenure up until the 2010 election was that he was 'not elected'. But of course he was elected - by the constituents of Kirkcaldy and by members of his own party - it was that he simply didn't have an electoral mandate (as neither did Major for example in 1990). Brown's position was less a reflection of the failings of himself and more a reflection of the failings of current Parliamentary system.

More seriously the lack of separation of powers represents a system where MPs become hopelessly compromised - by default. After being elected for 5 years their main objective is to achieve a ministerial career rather than attempt to hold the government to
account. They
want to join the government not listen to their constituents; which one pays more...?

The constituents of Witney, Doncaster and Sheffield will know this best - their own MPs wear two contradictory hats, a situation that Witterings from Witney knows only too well.

Did you notice that the letter sent to David Cameron about disputed formats for the election TV debates was itself a delicate contribution to pariah politics? Though identical in contents, as Rowena Mason explains, the missives were dispatched separately by Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage. Ed and Nick did not sign the same letter as Nigel, oh dear no.

Thus it's acutely apparent that the entire idea of leadership debates is an admission by the establishment that Parliament is failing and that we, as an electorate, are now effectively voting for the executive - the government and the Prime Minister - by proxy.

Thus more than ever the case becomes stronger that we need to directly elect our Prime Minister - and as a consequence separate out more formally the executive from Parliament. This idea is nothing new, it was proposed back in the 18th Century by Thomas Paine. Although born in England, via Common Sense, he was one of the fiercest critics of what he regarded as British tyranny.

The current, and rather childish standoffs over a Prime Ministerial leadership debate merely confirm that such reform is now very long overdue.

About The Boiling Frog

A blog about the anti-democratic and pernicious European Union with particular emphasis on its impact here in the UK. Also I'll cover British politics and occasionally chuck some whimsical nonsense in as well.

EU quotes

"[There's no way Britain could accept that] the most vital economic forces of this country should be handed over to an authority that is utterly undemocratic and is responsible to nobody"(British Prime Minister Clement Attlee in response to the Schuman Plan 1950)

"We should frankly recognise this surrender of sovereignty and its purpose."(Edward Heath, Hansard, 17 November 1966)

“America would welcome it if Britain should apply for full membership in the [EEC], explicitly recognising that the Rome treaty was not merely a static document but a process leading towards political unification.”(George Ball Under-Secretary of State for JFK 1961)

"The single market was the theme of the Eighties; the single currency was the theme of the Nineties; we must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy, a single political unity."(Romano Prodi, 13 April 1999)

"We perform the duties of freemen; we must have the privileges of freemen ..."(Chartists 1836)

"The [Lisbon Treaty] is indeed a tidying -up exercise, it sweeps the rest of our sovereignty under the Brussels carpet."(Lord Pearson)"The Government’s guiding principle was...to swallow the lot and swallow it now."(Sir Con O’Neill, the British diplomat who led the UK’s negotiations for EEC membership under Heath)

"I look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a council chamber in Europe."(Kenneth Clarke, Conservative Chancellor in International Currency Review Vol 23 No 4 1996)"The EU is the old Soviet Union dressed in Western clothes"(President Gorbachev)

"Europe's power is easy to miss. Like an 'invisible hand', it operates through the shell of traditional political structures. The British House of Commons, British law courts, and British civil servants are still here, but they have all become agents of the European Union implementing European law. This is no accident."(Mark Leonard co-founder and director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, the first pan-European think tank)

“I have lived in your future ….and it doesn’t work”(Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky on the EU)

"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"(Treaty of Rome 1957)

"This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union..."(Maastricht Treaty 1992)

"Now we've signed it - we had better read it"(Douglas Hurd, former Foreign Secretary on the Maastricht Treaty)"The supremacy of Community Law when in conflict with national law is the logical consequence of the federal concept of the Community"(H P Ipsen, 1964 - 9 years before the UK joined)

"[Norway] held a referendum [on the EU] that went the wrong way"(Douglas Hurd, former Foreign Secretary on the Maastricht Treaty)

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals we dare not present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and diguised" (Valery Giscard D'Estang. on the Lisbon treaty)

"The Tories have been indulging in their usual double talk. When they go to Brussels they show the greatest enthusiasm for political union. When they speak in the House of Commons they are most anxious to aver that there is no commitment whatever to any political union."(Labour MP Hugh Gaitskell, October 1962)"It means the end of a thousand years of history."(Hugh Gaitskell - 1906-63, on a European federation; speech at Labour Party Conference, 1962)

"The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State."(Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister)'If it's a Yes we will say "on we go", and if it's a No we will say "we continue".'(Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Council)

“The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”(German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the Lisbon Treaty)

"I have read some of [the Lisbon Treaty] but not all of it." (Caroline Flint, former Minister for Europe)

"The primary reason why Britain entered into [EEC] negotiations was political, political in its widest sense."(Edward Heath, lecture at Harvard, 1967)

“They must go on voting until they get it right.”(Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission)

"If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union."(Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky)"The European Union is a state under construction."(Elmar Brok, Chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs)

“I have never understood why public opinion about European ideas should be taken into account at all,”(French PM Raymond Barre)

“Let’s be clear about this. The rejection of the constitution was a mistake that will have to be corrected.”(Valéry Giscard d’Estaing)

“The 'no' votes were a demand for more Europe, not less.”(Romano Prodi, former President of the European Commission)"I don’t want an ‘in or out’ referendum because I don’t think out is in Britain’s interests.”(David Cameron, who won't hold a referendum because he thinks he'll lose)

"In Brussels one says "member state". You may imagine it means the same thing as country or state, but "member state" does not. Note that adjective. Member modifies state. Like "wooden" modifies "leg". The noun stays the same, but the essence of the thing is gone." (Mary Ellen Synon, Bruges Group Annual Conference 2013)

"No government dependent on a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifices which any adequate plan for European Union must involve. The people must be led slowly and unconsciously into the abandonment of their traditional economic defences, not asked…"(Peter Thorneycroft, former Tory MP)

"[Bailouts are] expressly forbidden in the treaties by the famous no-bailout clause. De facto, we have changed the treaty."(French Europe minister Pierre Lelouche)

"The European Union must take a decisive step towards a federal economic government, with common fiscal policies and a larger budget, if it is to save the euro. "(Andrew Duff Lib Dem MEP 2011)

"The transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of the rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights... against which a subsequent act incompatible with the concept of the Community cannot prevail"(ECJ Case 6/64)

"[The EU Constitution represents] a visible move in only one direction...from intergovernmentalism to supranationalism...and this should be explained to the people of Europe"(Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus)

"The European Parliament is a caucusing body that is incredibly responsive to lobbying institutions, but it is completely unresponsive to public opinion."(Gisela Stuart, Labour MP June 2009)

“Millions of people in this country will feel as I do, that legislation passed in this way, with no consent, cannot command the assent of the country and would lack moral and constitutional validity."(Douglas Jay MP during 2nd reading of European Communities Bill 1972)

"It is an illusion to think that [EU] states can hold on to their autonomy."(Hans Tietmeyer, head of the Bundesbank 1991)"...within ten years 80% of our economic legislation, perhaps even fiscal and social as well’ would come from the EU."(Jacques Delors, President of EU Commission 1988)

"The huge cost of the Common Agricultural Policy to taxpayers and consumers far outweighs any benefit to them..."(Memo by MAFF to House of Lords European Communities Committee 1995)

"...we must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy, a single political unity."(Romano Prodi, President of EU Commission 1999)

"The day of the nation state is over."(Roman Herzog, German president, 1996)

"The European system of supranationality comes at the cost of democracy."(Lord Leach of Fairford)

"A European currency will lead to member nations transferring their sovereignty over financial and wage policy as well as monetary affairs."(Hans Tietmeyer, head of the Bundesbank, 1991)

"The single currency is the greatest abandonment of sovereignty since the foundation of the European Community: the decision is of an essentially political nature"(Felipe Gonzalez, a Spanish former PM, 1998)

"The [EU] Council of Ministers will have far more power over the budgets of member states than the federal government in the United States has over the budget of Texas."(Jean-Claude Trichet, current head of the European Central Bank)

"One must never forget that monetary union, which the two of us were the first to propose more than a decade ago, is ultimately a political project. It aims to give a new impulse to the historic movement toward union of the European states"(Giscard d’Estaing, who drafted the EU Constitution 1997)

"The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU [economic and monetary union] is, and always was meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe"(Wim Duisenberg, first president of the EU Central Bank)

"Once the interlude of [WWI] was over, [countries] all went back to the rules and customs of traditional parliamentary democracies. I felt out of my depth."(Jean Monnet 'Father of Europe')

"We need to build a United States of Europe with the [EU] Commission as government."(Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner 2014)

"We had imagined a political 'grand design', a new international order..."(Jean Monnet 'Father of Europe')

"I like the English style of life. I feel more at home here in London"(Tintin creator, Belgian born Herge)

"We are not forming coalitions between States, but union among people"(Jean Monnet, 'Father of Europe')

"The sovereign nations of the past can no longer solve the problems of the present: they cannot ensure their own progress or control their own future. And the Community itself is only a stage on the way to the organised world of tomorrow."(Jean Monnet, 'Father of Europe')

"That such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a European super-state was ever embarked on will seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era. And that Britain . . . should ever have become part of it will appear a political error of the first magnitude."(Lady Thatcher, Statecraft)

"There is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty”(Ted Heath)

The British Government Knew The Consequences In 1971

...the transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feeling of alienation from government. To counter this feeling, strengthened local and regional democratic processes within the member states and effective Community regional economic and social policies will be essential.Parliamentary sovereignty will be affected as we have seen. But the need for Parliament to play an increasing (if perhaps more specialised) role may develop. Firstly, although a European Parliament might in the longest term become an effective, directly elected democratic check upon the bureaucracy, this will not be for a long time, and certainly not in the decade to come. In the interval, to minimise the loss of democratic control it will be important that the British Parliamentarians should play an effective role both through the British membership in the European Parliament and through the processes of the British Parliament itself.